DemonEater:Before the thread continues, colon_pow, I desire a response on this post. The one in response to your "one 'animal'" post, where you claim that all life was created instantly at the same time, and asked us to decide for ourselves which model "best fit observed events".

DemonEater: You, sir, have just hoist yourself by your own petard.

If every single living species was created simultaneously, ALL would be present in the earliest fossil records. As they died out, some animals would disappear. Others would keep right on going.

In the fossil record for, say, the Cambrian era, we would expect to see modern animals like horses and elephants and mice as well as dinosaurs (which did not exist until the Jurassic) and the trilobites and echinoderms and so on that actually lived in the Cambrian.

If the evolutionary theory was correct, we would initially see a handful of primitive types in the oldest layers, which over time would grow and diversify, resulting in a greater variety of more complex animals in younger layers. Occasionally some would die out and new ones would take their place.

All we have to do to tell which of these two theories is correct, is to see which one the actual fossil record resembles more.

I want to know how you explain this weakness in your theory. Since I have spent half this thread explaining the perceived weaknesses in evolution, it's your turn.

colon_pow:but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing.

Given that you have clearly not studied even the scientific method, your personal assessment of the theory of evolution and of research on abiogenesis has no merit, and is of no value. Additionally, given that you have lied, repeatedly, when discussing the theory of evolution, your assertions on the subject cannot be considered reliable.

colon_pow:i'm aware that evolution is happening. i'm quite sure that my neighbor's cat has a saber toothed tiger as an ancestor. i know about variation within species.

Then what have you been arguing about? This whole thread, you've been posting quotes and links and theories to attack the theory of evolution, and now you're saying you know it's correct, and what you've really been attacking this whole time is abiogenesis?

you don't know. you are working on it. i'm with you demoneater, keep looking, i won't try to stop you, i find science to be fascinating. but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing. science proves what science proves. it's the scientist's interpretations that are often biased.

If you can be convinced your neighbor's cat has sabre-toothed tiger in its ancestry, but you remain unconvinced by macro-evolution, you don't understand "macro-evolution". Macro-evolution is any change at the species level or above. That means for a Sabre-toothed Tiger (Genus Smilodon, part of the Machairodontinae subfamily of the Felidae family) to be the ancestor of a housecat (Genus Felis, of the Felinae subfamily of the Felidae family), there has to be some macro-evolution going on.

However, since Smilodon only went extinct about 10,000 years ago and lived in the Americas, and the Egyptians were already keeping cats 9500 years ago in the Near East where they evolved, there's actually no relation at all.

Dimensio:colon_pow: but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing.

Given that you have clearly not studied even the scientific method, your personal assessment of the theory of evolution and of research on abiogenesis has no merit, and is of no value. Additionally, given that you have lied, repeatedly, when discussing the theory of evolution, your assertions on the subject cannot be considered reliable.

i may occasionally make a mistake, or mispeak. you accuse me of lying in every one of your posts.

keep calling me a liar from the safety of your mom's basement. you wouldn't do that to my face. that is something i do not tolerate.

Your incorrect statements could have been regarded as "mistakes" when initially made. Your refusal to acknowledge that they are incorrect, and your repetition of them even after they have been exposed as false, however, means that you are lying.

you accuse me of lying in every one of your posts.

You have repeated false claims in spite of them having been exposed as false. In so doing, your are making claims that you know to be false. That is, by definition, "lying".

keep calling me a liar from the safety of your mom's basement.

I am currently sitting in the living room of an apartment that I rent. I am not in my "mom's basement". Your assertion has no basis in fact.

you wouldn't do that to my face.

On the contrary; as you are lying, I would note that fact regardless of my physical location.

that is something i do not tolerate.

Your tolerance does not affect my physical ability to note the fact that you are making demonstrably false claims even after they have been exposed as false.

DemonEater:colon_pow: i'm aware that evolution is happening. i'm quite sure that my neighbor's cat has a saber toothed tiger as an ancestor. i know about variation within species.

Then what have you been arguing about? This whole thread, you've been posting quotes and links and theories to attack the theory of evolution, and now you're saying you know it's correct, and what you've really been attacking this whole time is abiogenesis?

you don't know. you are working on it. i'm with you demoneater, keep looking, i won't try to stop you, i find science to be fascinating. but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing. science proves what science proves. it's the scientist's interpretations that are often biased.

If you can be convinced your neighbor's cat has sabre-toothed tiger in its ancestry, but you remain unconvinced by macro-evolution, you don't understand "macro-evolution". Macro-evolution is any change at the species level or above. That means for a Sabre-toothed Tiger (Genus Smilodon, part of the Machairodontinae subfamily of the Felidae family) to be the ancestor of a housecat (Genus Felis, of the Felinae subfamily of the Felidae family), there has to be some macro-evolution going on.

However, since Smilodon only went extinct about 10,000 years ago and lived in the Americas, and the Egyptians were already keeping cats 9500 years ago in the Near East where they evolved, there's actually no relation at all.

there is some disagreement on the definition of the term species. i would replace it with "kind".

i don't believe that all life has a common ancestor. plants, animals, bacteria didn't spring from the same amoeba.

If everything was created all at once, fairly similar to how they are now, with only variation at the species level, there would still be semi-elephants, quasi-horses, and proto-Tyrannosaurus fossils in the Cambrian fossil record.

Even at the Genus level, you can still recognize any member of the Felis family if you happen upon one. Members of a Genus look pretty similar. Those fossils would exist in ancient layers and they would be recognizable under your hypothesis.

The fossil record, even without showing transitional forms, is fairly clear that while a few arthropods were crawling out of the water occasionally, there were no actual land animals in the Cambrian, but there was plenty of marine life. So clearly, not everything was created at once, as you claim.

Your incorrect statements could have been regarded as "mistakes" when initially made. Your refusal to acknowledge that they are incorrect, and your repetition of them even after they have been exposed as false, however, means that you are lying.

you accuse me of lying in every one of your posts.

You have repeated false claims in spite of them having been exposed as false. In so doing, your are making claims that you know to be false. That is, by definition, "lying".

keep calling me a liar from the safety of your mom's basement.

I am currently sitting in the living room of an apartment that I rent. I am not in my "mom's basement". Your assertion has no basis in fact.

you wouldn't do that to my face.

On the contrary; as you are lying, I would note that fact regardless of my physical location.

that is something i do not tolerate.

Your tolerance does not affect my physical ability to note the fact that you are making demonstrably false claims even after they have been exposed as false.

just checked your profile. you are from Louisville and your team just defeated mine. you sir, are a poo poo head.

now that we agree on that...

i don't make demonstrably false claims. evolution has no proof, just speculation.

FloydA:Good. Congratulations, Texas. Once again, the forces of sanity prevail.

Sad that it was so close though.

Texas is the business republican state. It's owned and operated (indirectly) by some of the most powerful businessmen in the nation. We let the social conservatives who live in the boonies think they have a say, and we occasionally let them pass some stupid social conservative retardedness to keep them quiet, but we make sure to knock their asses back down if they ever start trying to threaten the economic prosperity of the state.

Trying to push creationism and wide-eyed social conservativism threatens the prosperity of the state. Period. Thus, it's shot down.

It makes you the retarded, unintelligent, illogical jesus-freak in the room (even if you're an atheist), and it threatens corporate image as a whole. Only jesus freaks want to do business with the jesus freak, and that unnecessarily limits your market. After all, who would want to do serious business with some idiot who thinks god is both the explanation and the solution to everything?

That's why I'm okay with still living in Dallas, despite being a Democrat. We have Diet Religion, people stay out of your face, and nobody really cares, but when people start trying to screw up the workforce by dumbing down children excessively, we put a stop to it. The smart people that actually are in charge (despite frequently putting on a fake southern accent and playing dumb) will always bring home the bacon.

I have no "team". Your assertion is thus inaccurate, and it is irrelevant to the current discussion.

you sir, are a poo poo head.

Your assertion is an ad hominem.

now that we agree on that...

I have not agreed with your statements.

i don't make demonstrably false claims.

You are again lying. You previously claimed that the policy that was the subject of the vote referenced in the linked article forbids discussion of "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Your claim in that regard is demonstrably false, as the policy does not forbid such discussion. You claimed that Nebraska Man, Neanderthal and Lucy were "fakes". That claim is demonstrably false, as none of those specimens were "fake". You later claimed that they were merely misrepresented, however that claim is also demonstrably false, as Neanderthal and "Lucy" were not misrepresented, and "Nebraska Man" was never widely accepted as a hominid find. You claimed that the "scientific community" "embraced" the Archaeoraptor find. Your assertion is demonstrably false, as the "scientific community" rejected Archaeoraptor when it was initially presented.

Your assertion that you do not make demonstrably false claims is itself false. As your assertions have already been exposed as false, your denial of making demonstrably false claims is itself a lie.

evolution has no proof,

No scientific claims are ever "proven". "Proof" exists for no scientific explanation. Your assertion demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific methodology.

just speculation.

Your assertion is demonstrably false. Knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of the theory of evolution, and a more in-depth understanrding of the causes of those mechanisms -- such as the knowledge that variation of offspring is the result of mutation -- has resulted in the logical derivation of predicted observations that should result from the occurrence of the theory of evolution. When these predictions are fulfilled -- which has occurred upon numerous occasions -- the theory of evolution is further supported, and the observations of the fulfillment of those predictions constitute evidence in support of the theory. These observations would not have been made were the predictions or mechanisms of the theory of evolution "just speculation". It is evident that you have never actually studied the theory of evolution. As such, your claims upon the subject cannot be considered credible. Given that you are demonstrably willing to lie, as is evident from the documented instances of you lying that I have referenced previously, nothing that you claim may be considered reliable.

Lord_Baull:Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."

I guess I should post this again:There were puddles of liquid in front of my house last night.I didn't see how it got there, but I heard loud, sharp noises last night. And there's similar liquid on my roof and in my trees. Strangely, the sky was covered with dark clouds.Since I wasn't there to witness the event, I can only assume it was Intelligent Crying.

Or do you need absolute proof before you decide it rained last night?

That's an awesome analogy. It reminds me of the time one of my mildly mentally retarded students looked out the window at the rain and said "look, Mr. D, God is crying." And I looked out the window and said "yeah...probably because of something you did."

Oh hell no. Jack Chick isn't nearly as calm and even-tempered as colon_pow, despite his bullshiat. Chick would have started flat-out ranting about winning souls or telling us how Catholics aren't Christian, or that Muslims worship some wacky moon god.

Fair enough. It's the way colon_pow caricatures biology teachers as hysterical authoritarians shouting down students who dare to ask questions that seemed like something out of a Chick tract. But this thread has put Chick tracts on my mind.

/Haw haw!

Just the other day during my science class, I told 7 Christian kids to shut up. Then we sacrificed a dissected frog to Baal and spit on the Bible. The kids that spit on the Bible got A+++++++ and the kids who refused to do it got F--------. Then all the girls showed their titties to the boys and the boys wacked their pee-pees, because as an evolutionist, I am completely immoral and just became a teacher to corrupt children. We ended the class by listening to Slayer's "Reign in Blood." Colon Pow finally caught me and exposed my evil plans for what they really are: the work of Satan.

colon_pow:Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.

So you're OK signing on with the same dude who created guinea worms, is what you're saying.

Oh hell no. Jack Chick isn't nearly as calm and even-tempered as colon_pow, despite his bullshiat. Chick would have started flat-out ranting about winning souls or telling us how Catholics aren't Christian, or that Muslims worship some wacky moon god.

Fair enough. It's the way colon_pow caricatures biology teachers as hysterical authoritarians shouting down students who dare to ask questions that seemed like something out of a Chick tract. But this thread has put Chick tracts on my mind.

/Haw haw!

Just the other day during my science class, I told 7 Christian kids to shut up. Then we sacrificed a dissected frog to Baal and spit on the Bible. The kids that spit on the Bible got A+++++++ and the kids who refused to do it got F--------. Then all the girls showed their titties to the boys and the boys wacked their pee-pees, because as an evolutionist, I am completely immoral and just became a teacher to corrupt children. We ended the class by listening to Slayer's "Reign in Blood." Colon Pow finally caught me and exposed my evil plans for what they really are: the work of Satan.

colon_pow:98% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. no new ones are emerging. this contradicts evolution which states that species are constantly evolving.

creation happened long ago and is not happening now.

this can be observed.

New ones are emerging; what are you talking about?

Wait, wait, wait. You are seriously suggesting (or trolling, but whatever) that we cannot observe genetic changes? Or are you suggesting that we should be observing tons of new species in 150 years when it's obvious that some of these speciation events can take millenia?

So here's a link (new window) with a bunch of speciation events AND a full lesson on what the term actually means for you to hurt your brain on.

Dimensio:colon_pow: just checked your profile. you are from Louisville

This statement is accurate, but irrelevant to the current discussion.

and your team just defeated mine.

I have no "team". Your assertion is thus inaccurate, and it is irrelevant to the current discussion.

you sir, are a poo poo head.

Your assertion is an ad hominem.

now that we agree on that...

I have not agreed with your statements.

i don't make demonstrably false claims.

You are again lying. You previously claimed that the policy that was the subject of the vote referenced in the linked article forbids discussion of "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Your claim in that regard is demonstrably false, as the policy does not forbid such discussion. You claimed that Nebraska Man, Neanderthal and Lucy were "fakes". That claim is demonstrably false, as none of those specimens were "fake". You later claimed that they were merely misrepresented, however that claim is also demonstrably false, as Neanderthal and "Lucy" were not misrepresented, and "Nebraska Man" was never widely accepted as a hominid find. You claimed that the "scientific community" "embraced" the Archaeoraptor find. Your assertion is demonstrably false, as the "scientific community" rejected Archaeoraptor when it was initially presented.

Your assertion that you do not make demonstrably false claims is itself false. As your assertions have already been exposed as false, your denial of making demonstrably false claims is itself a lie.

evolution has no proof,

No scientific claims are ever "proven". "Proof" exists for no scientific explanation. Your assertion demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific methodology.

just speculation.

Your assertion is demonstrably false. Knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of the theory of evolution, and a more in-depth understanrding of the causes of those mechanisms -- such as the knowledge that variation of offspring is the result of mutation -- has resulted in the logical derivation of predicted observations that should result from the occurrence of the theory of evolution. When these predictions are fulfilled -- which has occurred upon numerous occasions -- the theory of evolution is further supported, and the observations of the fulfillment of those predictions constitute evidence in support of the theory. These observations would not have been made were the predictions or mechanisms of the theory of evolution "just speculation". It is evident that you have never actually studied the theory of evolution. As such, your claims upon the subject cannot be considered credible. Given that you are demonstrably willing to lie, as is evident from the documented instances of you lying that I have referenced previously, nothing that you claim may be considered reliable.

you are tiresome. get a life.it's friday night, dude, get out of the basement.

colon_pow:you are tiresome. get a life.it's friday night, dude, get out of the basement.

Your above statement is a non-sequitur, and does not constitute support for your position, nor does it alter the fact that you have lied upon numerous occasions during this discussion. Additionally, as I have already informed you that I am not currently occupying a basement, you are also lying.

Dimensio:Please describe the "creation" event. Explain the physical processes involved in this event.

haven't we been through this before? i told you exactly how it happened.

As you have been informed of this previously, your above statement is a demonstrable obtuse obfuscation which is not currently observed and does not constitute evidence in support of your indefensible and may i add, completely absurd and preposterous position..

colon_pow:oh, and thanks for the Observed Instances of Speciation. let me know when they agree on what a species is.

Let me know when you can read the words in the article. Oh, wait, I have a better one: you complain that they don't agree on speciation and then say that there have been no observed instances, yet each one of the things that you think are different have observed instances.

Again, what is your evidence for creation? How do you deduce this and have it necessarily be so? How can you form a valid and sound argument that leads to this inevitable conclusion? Are you sure that there aren't any other possible explanations for your observations? How do you expect to explain away the other disciplines of radiochemistry, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics and basic biology which would all be instantly invalidated were creationism correct? I mean basic things would have to be wrong, leading to horrible consequences like x-rays killing you instantly because we cannot calculate the radiation doses anymore because the fundamentals of radiochemistry are wrong.

But that doesn't happen. You get x-rays and they work and you live. Why? Because Radiochemistry is correct. And if that's correct then the parts of geology based on using it as a tool are also correct and so on up the line. See how this works?

colon_pow:oh, and thanks for the Observed Instances of Speciation. let me know when they agree on what a species is.

Biologists typically agree that, when addressing sexually reproducing organisms, two given populations are different species when the members of one population do not, in the wild, mate with members of the other.

While an exact definition of species is problematic, this is actually expected as a result of the consequences of evolution. However, frequently creationist claims regarding speciation are inherently dishonest, as addressed by Shane Killian.

PC LOAD LETTER:colon_pow: oh, and thanks for the Observed Instances of Speciation. let me know when they agree on what a species is.

Let me know when you can read the words in the article. Oh, wait, I have a better one: you complain that they don't agree on speciation and then say that there have been no observed instances, yet each one of the things that you think are different have observed instances.

Again, what is your evidence for creation? How do you deduce this and have it necessarily be so? How can you form a valid and sound argument that leads to this inevitable conclusion? Are you sure that there aren't any other possible explanations for your observations? How do you expect to explain away the other disciplines of radiochemistry, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics and basic biology which would all be instantly invalidated were creationism correct? I mean basic things would have to be wrong, leading to horrible consequences like x-rays killing you instantly because we cannot calculate the radiation doses anymore because the fundamentals of radiochemistry are wrong.

But that doesn't happen. You get x-rays and they work and you live. Why? Because Radiochemistry is correct. And if that's correct then the parts of geology based on using it as a tool are also correct and so on up the line. See how this works?

dude what are you smoking? you're saying that if life was created then all of the sciences would be invalidated? i smell cognitive dissonance.

You are again lying. You did not explain "exactly how it happened". In fact, you claimed "I don't know how God did it.", acknowledging that, in fact, you are unable to define the process that you claim to have occurred. The fundamental problem with your position is that you are asserting the occurrence of an entirely undefined event. Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined.

As you have been informed of this previously, your above statement is a demonstrable obtuse obfuscation which is not currently observed and does not constitute evidence in support of your indefensible and may i add, completely absurd and preposterous position..

Your assertion is predicated upon a demonstrable lie. You did not explain "exactly how it happened", and you were lying when you claimed to have done so.

Dimensio:colon_pow: oh, and thanks for the Observed Instances of Speciation. let me know when they agree on what a species is.

Biologists typically agree that, when addressing sexually reproducing organisms, two given populations are different species when the members of one population do not, in the wild, mate with members of the other.

While an exact definition of species is problematic, this is actually expected as a result of the consequences of evolution. However, frequently creationist claims regarding speciation are inherently dishonest, as addressed by Shane Killian.

so this is where i should link to somebody who refers to your type as dishonest?

Dimensio:You are again lying. You did not explain "exactly how it happened". In fact, you claimed "I don't know how God did it.", acknowledging that, in fact, you are unable to define the process that you claim to have occurred. The fundamental problem with your position is that you are asserting the occurrence of an entirely undefined event. Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined.

the same can be said of abiogenesis and macro evolution. The fundamental problem with your position is that you are asserting the occurrence of an entirely undefined and unobserved event. Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined, and therefore the only thing which can be determined is that you are a total failure and liar to be pitied, if not despised.

colon_pow:so this is where i should link to somebody who refers to your type as dishonest?

You are under no obligation to perform any action, however I would suggest that the most advisable possible actions that you could perform would be either to demonstrate that the rebuttals made against your claims are invalid, or to acknowledge that your previous statements have been false and then apologize for making them. You could also view the video that I referenced and then either dispute the specific statements made therin or concede the point made by the author of the video.

Your above statement constitutes neither a demonstration that any of the rebuttals made against your previous assertions are flawed nor a concession that your previous statements were false.

While abiogenesis is currently not fully explained through extant processes, I have never claimed that it is. It is for that reason that abiogenesis remains hypothesis, and why it has not yet become accepted as a theory. However, the same is not true for "macro evolution", as "macro evolution" is mechanically no different than "micro evolution"; both occur fundamentally as a result of a combination of variance in offspring combined with environment-specific reproductive selection pressures affecting reproductive success rates based upon heritable traits, or "natural selection". Your ignorance of this subject demonstrates only that you have not adequately researched the subject that you are addressing; it does not actually demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not viable.

Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined, and therefore the only thing which can be determined is that you are a total failure and liar to be pitied, if not despised.

Your assertion is based upon a demonstrably false premise and, as such, is invalid.

colon_pow:98% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. no new ones are emerging. this contradicts evolution which states that species are constantly evolving.

Look a few posts above you, SCIENTISTS HAVE OBSERVED BACTERIA EVOLVING INTO NEW SPECIES OF BACTERIA.

Christ, do I have to shout it?

Evolution of modern macroscopic life, as I already stated, is difficult to observe because macroscopic life doesn't reproduce as fast as bacteria. Thus the evolution from one species to another would take more than one lifetime.

Dimensio:However, the same is not true for "macro evolution", as "macro evolution" is mechanically no different than "micro evolution"; both occur fundamentally as a result of a combination of variance in offspring combined with environment-specific reproductive selection pressures affecting reproductive success rates based upon heritable traits, or "natural selection".

I believe that I should append this statement with further explanation. It is insufficient to merely state "variance in offspring" and "natural selection" as mechanisms. It is also necessary that both of those events have been directly observed. Organisms -- even asexually reproducing organisms -- have been directly observed producing non-identical offspring and, moreover, many of the alterations in traits expressed in the offspring are themselves expressed in offspring of the altered organism. Natural selection has also been observed, and even directly replicated; it has been directly observed that there are often environmental conditions that favor certain sets of physiological traits within a population of a species over other sets of physiological traits. In order for a scientific explanation to be viable, it must be explained as being known occurring physical processes; the processes of evolution are stated and known to occur.

colon_pow:Dimensio: You are again lying. You did not explain "exactly how it happened". In fact, you claimed "I don't know how God did it.", acknowledging that, in fact, you are unable to define the process that you claim to have occurred. The fundamental problem with your position is that you are asserting the occurrence of an entirely undefined event. Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined.

the same can be said of abiogenesis and macro evolution. The fundamental problem with your position is that you are asserting the occurrence of an entirely undefined and unobserved event. Undefined events, however, cannot be meaningfully addressed, meaning that their occurrenc cannot be meaningfully determined, and therefore the only thing which can be determined is that you are a total failure and liar to be pitied, if not despised.

Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, the same mechanism, just a different scale.

Microevolution:

1+1+1 = 3

Macroevolution:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ . . . = a big number.

Same mechanism, just a larger scale.

In fact, the words macroevolution and microevolution are misnomers, there is only evolution.

Dimensio:It is also necessary that both of those events have been directly observed.

Again, I must append my statement, for which I apologize.

There are scientific explanations that rely upon mechanisms that have not been entirely observed. However, these explanations are still valid if these mechanisms are themselves deduced to be a logical consequence of processes that have been observed. This is often the case when addressing matters of cosmology; many cosmological explanations are based upon mechanisms that while themselves not directly observed in their entirety are essentially derived as being the composite result of a number of individual processes that have been directly observed occurring in concert. Such a "composite" mechanism may still be used to derive useful predictions, because these predictions are still fundamentally derived from events that are known to occur.

heinekenftw:Evolution of modern macroscopic life, as I already stated, is difficult to observe because macroscopic life doesn't reproduce as fast as bacteria. Thus the evolution from one species to another would take more than one lifetime.

And let me clarify something, when I said "evolution is difficult to observe," I was speaking in terms of speciation. Evolution in general isn't that difficult to observe.

You have still provided no rational argument. You have lied repeatedly, you have dishonestly changed the subject of discussion and you have demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding not only of the subject of evolution, but also of scientific methodology and even of the very article to which this subject relates. You cannot be considered a credible source of information on any subject. Your willfull and dishonest evasion of all facts that directly contradict your false claims demonstrates further that you are entirely unwilling in honest discussion, and further supports my hypothesis that creationists, in general, are willing to lie as a means of supporting their position and that they, in general, willfully ignore reality.

colon_pow:Dimensio: colon_pow: but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing.

Given that you have clearly not studied even the scientific method, your personal assessment of the theory of evolution and of research on abiogenesis has no merit, and is of no value. Additionally, given that you have lied, repeatedly, when discussing the theory of evolution, your assertions on the subject cannot be considered reliable.

i may occasionally make a mistake, or mispeak. you accuse me of lying in every one of your posts.

keep calling me a liar from the safety of your mom's basement. you wouldn't do that to my face. that is something i do not tolerate.

You are dishonest at best, you dont study what facts are given to you, and you are shown to be confused by the simplest of terms.

This is because you are not learning about the topic on which you are speaking. When you speak of what you dont know, you are going to be a called a liar when you start spouting cr*p.

colon_pow, you seem to have need some help with the situation you find yourself in here. Believe it or not, there is a way to save face and redeem your credibility. It's something that I think should be rather easy, but since you apparently don't know how, I'll help you out with complete, step-by-step instructions:

Step 1: Click in the "Comment:" text area below this thread where you type in your responses. I assume that you already have your "Login:" and "Password:" entered. You should see a flashing text bar cursor in the upper left corner of that text area.

Step 2a: Look at your keyboard. Over on the left side, second row from the bottom, you'll see a large key, often shaded a different color from most of the other keys, though others near it share that same color. It's labeled "⇑ Shift". Press and hold this [⇑ Shift ] key with your left pinky finger.

Step 2b: While still holding that key down, hover your right index fingertip over the top row of keys on the typewriter-like alphanumeric portion of the keyboard. These are all small keys, and with the exception of the very last one, would all be shaded a different color from the [⇑ Shift ] key unless your keyboard has only one color of keys. Most of them have numerals (digits) as their bottom labels, and a punctuation symbol as the top label. The digits are in numerical order (except that zero [0] follows nine [9]), so it's easy to find the spot we're looking for: you need to hover the fingertip between two keys, namely, the one labeled [*8] and the one next to it labeled [(9] (the labels here are shown horizontally separated, but actually they're vertically separated: the punctuation symbol is on top of the digit). Now, move your fingertip down one row, and it should be hovering over a key labeled [I]. Press and release that key, then release the [⇑ Shift ] key. You should see "I" appear in the "Comments:" edit box, with the bar cursor now flashing just to the right of it.

Step 2c: Finally, with either thumb, press and release the widest key on the keyboard, one that has no label at all. This is called the "space bar." You should see no text change in the box, but the flashing bar cursor should move slightly to the right, a very short distance away from the "I" that you created in Step 2b.

Step 3a: Remember how we used the top row of number keys to help find a letter key in Step 2b? Well, let's do it again: this time, we need to hover our left index fingertip between the [@2] and [#3] keys, then move down one row. The key that your fingertip should now be hovering over should be labeled [W]. Press and release it, and remember it because we're going to need it again in Step 4a. You should now see a "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "I" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 3b: With your left fingertip still on or above the [W] key, move it down one row and to the left one key so that hovers over the [A] key. Press and release it, and voila! "a" has now been added just after the "w", and the flashing bar cursor is now just to the right of the newly-created "a"!

Step 3c: Now move your left fingertip one key to the right from the [A] key that you just pressed. This key is the [S] key. Press and release it, and "s" gets added to the right of the "wa" which is a short distance from the "I" from Step 1. So far, you should see "I was" with the flashing bar cursor just to the right of the newly-created "s"!

Step 3d is the same as Step 2c, namely, press the space bar. Again, the flashing bar cursor should move a short distance to the right, visibly separated from the "s."

Step 4a: Remember how I told you back in Step 3a that we'd need the [W] key again in Step 4a? Well, guess what? This is step 4a! Now's the time! If you forgot where it is, fear not: your left fingertip should still be hovering near the [S] key, and it's one row up and slightly to the left of that! Press and release it. You should now see a second "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "s" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 4b: move your left fingertip not one, but two, keys to the right of the [W] key. It should now be hovering over the [R] key. Press and release it. You should now see an "r" appear just to the right of the "w," and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "r."

Step 4c: If you haven't moved your right hand much since Step 2b, its index fingertip should still be hovering over or near the [I] key. The one that we want now is just to the right of that: the [O] key. If you lost track of that, you can find it easily by using the numbers trick: this key is just one row below the space between the [(9] and [)0] keys. You should know what to do by now: press and release it, and watch the "o" appear, with the bar cursor moving to just past it.

Step 4d: Now it gets a bit tricky. Move the right index fingertip not just one, but two, keys to the left, so that it's hovering over the [U] key. That's not the one we want to press, though: now, move the fingertip down not one, but two rows. It should now be hovering over the [N] key. Press and release it. "n" appears.

Step 4e: Back to the left index fingertip, which we last left in Step 4b hovering over the [R] key. Move it over one to the right so that it now hovers over the [T] key, then down one row so that it hovers over the [G] key. Press and release that. "g" appears.

Step 4f: Actually, your message as it exists now would be good enough for most FARKers, but just to satisfy the grammar Nazis, move the left fingertip (which should still be hovering over the [N] key) three keys to the right, so that it hovers over a key labeled [>.]. Press and release that.